Karin Johnsrud .com
Research Question[1]
A disabled movie buff, who uses a wheelchair, attended Monday Night Movies, a free public event, but was prevented from going onto the grass by the organizers, the Bryant Park Restoration Fund, a private entity. The Fund explained that under their previously-announced policy, wheelchair-bound attendees were free to use any of the sidewalk areas of the park, but were prohibited from entering the grass. The space on the sidewalk is regarded as less than satisfactory by all attendees, although the view of the screen is unobstructed. A library patron wants to know how she can find out whether the Americans with Disabilities Act provides any guidance in such instances.
RESEARCH PLAN:
Depending on whether you work as a librarian in a law firm, academic or public library, your approach will be different. At a minimum you need to have a strategy to share with your patron so you can direct her to the correct sources, and at most you could apply that strategy and perform the search and share the result with the partner or faculty member who gave you the assignment.
I. ISSUE: Does the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) apply to privately sponsored events in a public park?
II. JURISDICTION: Federal law (NY)
III. KEY TERMS: Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, park, public park, public venue, private event, privately-sponsored,
IV. RESOURCES:
a. Secondary sources: Encyclopedias (American Jurisprudence) or Law Review Articles (use the Index to Legal Periodicals and LegaTrack)
b. United States Code Annotated (or the United Code Service, or Bloomberg’s USC)
c. Case law databases (on Westlaw, Lexis, or Bloomberg)
d. Administrative rules (Westlaw, Lexis, or Bloomberg)
RESEARCH LOG:
I. Secondary Sources.
A. Searched Treatises:
a. Used an OPAC (e.g. Pegasus, )
b. entered the following terms in the title field: “americans with disabilities”
c. obtained 14 results:
d. none looked promising
NB: thinking back perhaps a treatise search was not the appropriate first step; this seems to be a discrete issue and a law review article may be a better approach
B. Searched for relevant Law Review Articles.
a. I used the Index Legal Periodicals (CLIO, or Pegasus; Westlaw, Lexis))
b. Typed in “Americans with disabilities” and “scope”
i. Seemingly irrelevant results
c. Typed in the first search box Americans with disabilities in the second movies
d. 4 results; the following three look promising.
i. Ellsworth, F. H. The Worst Seats in the House: Stadium-Style Movie Theaters and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The University of Chicago Law Review v. 71 no. 3 (Summer 2004) p. 1109-39
ii. Civil rights -- Americans with Disabilities Act -- Ninth Circuit holds that movie theaters must provide comparable viewing angles for patrons in wheelchairs. Harvard Law Review v. 117 no. 2 (December 2003) p. 727-34
iii. Civil Rights--Americans with Disabilities Act--District Court Approves Settlement Requiring Movie Theaters to Provide Closed Captioning for Deaf and Hard-of-hearing People. Harvard Law Review v. 118 no. 5 (March 2005) p. 1777-84
e. Performed the same search (only movie) from Westlaw’s (4 results) and Lexis’ ILP (3 results)
f. Skimmed through the second one
i. Found references to 42 U.S.C. §12182 (2000) (discrimination by participation in unequal benefit) and
ii. many cases, including, Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 339 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2003)..
g. I used LegaTrack with the same research query
i. Let's all go to the movies and put an end to disability discrimination: Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Regal Cinemas, Inc. requires comparable viewing angles for wheelchair seating.(Ninth Circuit Survey)(Case Note) Pub:Golden Gate University Law Review Detail:Joshua D. Watts. 34.1-3 (Spring 2004): p1-35.
ii. Clicked on the e-link and read the article from HeinOnLine
iii. Found two lines of cases;
1. one in favor of the theater owner (5th cir Lara v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 207 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2000) and 2nd Cir: Meineker v. Hoyts Cinemas Corp., No. 02-9034, 2003 WL 21510423 (2nd Cir. July 1, 2003).)
2. another in favor of the disabled moviegoer (9th cir: Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 339 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2003))
C. Searched for practitioners’ tools
a. Encyclopedias
i. AMJur (Used Westlaw)
1. searched for "american with disabilities" /p movie
2. 3 results
3. (the Oregon case mentioned again)
ii. NY Jur (Used Westlaw) (just in case a federal case was going to be mentioned)
1. same search (replaced /p with and)
2. no results
iii. Used Lexis for both searches and databases, and I obtained the same results as on Lexis
II. Searched the United Stated Code Annotated,
a. Index search: typed “disabilities”
i. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( 42 USCA s. 12101 et seq
1. Went to the codified section: Title 42 Chapter 126
2. Skimmed through the TOC for the chapter
3. Found Subchapter III - 'Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities', §12181 et seq.
4. Went to the section
a. §12181 defined “private entity” and “public accommodation” (Place of entertainment)
b. §12182 defined discrimination by participation in unequal benefit
c. skimmed through notes of decisions
i. line of sight cases
ii. looked for NY cases
iii. found NDNY case: Meineker (216 F.Supp.2d 14): seats located amongst the ones for general seating satisfied ADA requirements (VACATED!! 69 Fed.Appx. 19 (2003) (not to be used as precendent!)
b. TOC Search
i. Chose title 42
ii. Typed
iii. Found 15 results, including 42 U.S.C.A. § 12182
c. Popular name table;
i. No search box
ii. Just ctr+F looking for statutes starting with A, American….
iii. Bad search strategy
iv. But I found ADA
d. Full Text Search
e. Updating
III. Searched the United States Code Service.
a. Index Search
i. Typed “Americans with disabilities
ii. Found ADA amendments act of 2008, 42 §12101 note.
b. TOC
i. Same strategy as in Westlaw; obtained 3 results (section 12101; 12182 & 12188)
c. Popular name table:
i. Searched for “Americans with disabilities”
ii. 3 results
iii. 2nd ADA of 1990
d. Full Text Search
e. Updating
IV. Searched the United States Code (Bloomberg)
a. Index Search
i. Typed americans with disabilities
ii. Sent to popular name table
iii. Useless
b. TOC
i. No TOC feature
c. Popular name
i. Typed americans with disabilities
ii. Obtained a list of statutes whose first name started with A
iii. americans with disabilities act is in yellow marker
d. Full Text Search
e. Updating
V. Searched free-of charge statutory databases:
a.
i. To finding aids
ii. Full text
b. THOMAS.
i. No finding aids
c. Cornell IIL
i. No finding aids
d.
i. No finding aids
VI. Searched for cases
a. Strategies:
i. Used the notes of decisions (statutory annotations) (Lexis) (Wesltaw)
ii. Used the Digest (Westlaw)
iii. used the one good case approach (Westlaw).
1. retrieved Meineker.
2. keycited meineker
3. understood that Meineker’s location standard of the seats being an integral part of the seating chart had been modified and the new standard was one that required the seats to be both within the general seating area and within the line of sight.
iv. Used Boolean searches within the full-text databases (Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg)
VII. Searched for federal administrative rules.
i. Index search (Westlaw)
In Westlaw, I searched the CFR index for “accommodation” and “park” and “disability”. The results did not cover any of the Park’s duties (as a private entity). To the extent that 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1193, App. might be relevant, it refers to physical “barriers” which was not the case.
ii. TOC searches (Lexis, Westlaw)
iii. Full Text Searches (fee-based and free-of-charge databases)
In Lexis, I looked for administrative rules under the practitioner’s toolbox of 42 USC §§12181 and 12182, and no CFR provisions were useful.
Answer
42 USC §§12181-2
Room for argument in light of the Meineker case (district court decision).
-----------------------
[1] This is based on a Research Hypothetical by Karin Johnsrud.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- key term assessment quia
- wscc english home
- environmental protection act r s o 1990 c e 19
- lia 394c fall asu
- karin johnsrud com
- u s v united states golf association inc
- veterans benefits administration home
- summary conclusions of
- enron what caused the ethical collapse
- list of examples of negative reinforcement and of
Related searches
- getroman com reviews
- acurafinancialservices.com account management
- acurafinancialservices.com account ma
- getroman.com tv
- http cashier.95516.com bing
- http cashier.95516.com bingprivacy notice.pdf
- connected mcgraw hill com lausd
- education.com games play
- rushmorelm.com one time payment
- autotrader.com used cars
- b com 2nd year syllabus
- gmail.com sign in